Sacha Blumen notes that there have been suggestions that the NSW Labor Party dissolve the Legislative Council which is the upper house in the NSW Parliament.

The Westminster parliamentary system combines the executive and legislative in the lower house. In some parliamentary systems, such as Queensland's and New Zealand's the parliament is unicameral - only has one house. Most however are bicameral and operate with an Assembly (lower house) and Council (upper house).

The Washington System modeled its Congress on the Westminster system minus the executive being in the legislative. However it saw the upper house as being of federal character and representing the states rather than the House which was national in character and represented the people.

At the state level in Australia there isn't so much of that form of split representation. It was originally a compromise between Australian republicans and monarchists; it was originally intended that the upper house would be titled in the same manner as the House of Lords. Dan Deniehy's bunyip aristocracy speech comes from pillorising that constitutional plan.

However, in a Westminster system and the Australian mechanism of block voting and party discipline which Labor has perfected, it is important that there be something to counter executive power. Unlike Washington, in Westminster the executive has complete control of the legislature and money bills. Which is a heady combination for any executive seeking to expand its power and they all do at all times.

It is important that some other body act as a check on the executive. In the Australian forms of Westminster this means checks on the lower house. Currently an upper house is but one mechanism to achieve that.

Queensland suicide squadded their upper house when the Governor was overseas and a politically compliant Lieutenant Governor was instituted. I don't see how it could be done in NSW. Either way it would be bad policy and only lead to poorer governance than exists now.

Parliamentary systems can cause electoral confusion. Voters in parliamentary elections do not get to directly vote for the executive. They vote for their local representative in the legislative. The executive is formed from the legislative based on being able to secure stable numbers to establish government.

Voters have to vote in their own interests. Do they vote in their legislative interests, or their executive interests? In the House it is a bit moot as the House is dominated by executive discipline and the Executive Cabinet is largely, though not entirely, formed from the House. In comparison voters tend to vote in their legislative interests in the Senate.

Sacha Blumen wrote a letter to the Star Observer on this issue. (more)

These are excerpts from the UK Chambers' Hansard of Gordon Brown's speech on Constitutional Reform. (more)

Following on from this article : if you didn't know Australia was a parliamentary system, and you read SSR , then you could be excused for thinking we have a presidential one. It is all Keating, Howard, Rudd, Greiner, Carr, Bracks, Kennett etc (more)

At present the Prime Minister enjoys unprecedented power of the House and the Senate. He does this not just through party membership, but by enforcing party discipline through the carrot and stick relationship all members of the Liberal have with their leaders power over patronage.

(Members of the Labor party have a similar relationship with the party through caucus and their faction, but not with the leader as such).

I want to see the Senate freed from the Prime Ministers patronage. (more)

In the United States the scandals surrounding the political use of the executive for party advantage seem to be growing. The GSA one is about having US Republican Party representatives at all the ribbon cutting ceremonies. (more)

Fred Barbash has an interesting article, Why would Congress surrender , where he argues silence also passes for action. He writes that Congress has been so timid in asserting its power as a branch that it is breaking the underlying assumption of the doctrine of separation of powers. (more)

Great article on separation of powers as relating to the circumstances in Bangladesh . Huda focuses on the judiciary in Bangladesh and how it isn't able to pursue or achieve its constitutional function. (more)

There was an interesting debate in the Senate on October 16th between Andrew Murray, Chris Evans and Eric Abetz. It pretty much represents all that was good and bad with the Senate. Andrew Murray argued for discrete budgeting, line by line, in parliamentary entitlements which is covered in sections of the Remuneration Tribunal Act. He did so in the interests of greater transparency and ease of auditing.

The fact is that each individual item we are entitled to spend as part of our allocations for doing our jobs is discrete and separate. So this is a principle whereby one which has been traditionally always been separate is to be used in aggregation, if there is a carry-over amount, with another. That is a new principle, and one which I would challenge in this circumstance because, unless we move to the holistic approach of a macro budget, I think it is far preferable to keep things separate.

(more)

I have been enjoying Barnaby Joyce simply because he carries his inner-debate between representing his conscience, his state, his party and the coalition government so publicly. Joyce had predominantly voted with the coalition and has been notable more for the few times he has dissented, however, he delivered a very independent minded speech last month to the Law Institute of Victoria; Crossing the floor: Political Hero or Renegade? The sensationalist title aside, it contains a good insight into Joyce's view of what democracy should be. (more)